Darwin's theory

GreeBo

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

No, it isn't. So long as there are enough straight couples producing offspring, then the overall group is unaffected. In fact, homosexuality might contain a clan's population for the benefit of the group, where overpopulation becomes an issue due to food and resource concerns.

The population as a whole would only be affected if all members of a group were homosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would not exist at all.

Dying from hunger would contain the population, that's what happens naturally.

But " the group" doesn't reproduce, individuals within the group do.

Sorry, why are you saying homosexuality wouldn't exist?
If it's what I think you mean then why does my appendix exist?

GreeBo

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I hope people reading this don't think that arguing that homosexuality was unlikely to be adaptive means the person arguing this case thinks it's a learned behaviour. I certainly don't think this at all. I personally think the explanation is probably hormonal events during gestation.

Thankfully only one poster thinks that and they have been ignored, which is nice.

One interesting point in that article was that statistically the more male offspring you have the more likely the toner ones will be gay, due to aggregating changes in the mothers body.

Defender OF Faith

Ok I didnt expect my original post to trigger a debate over such a thing I think people who are arguing about the benefits of homosexuality are missing the point while you might argue that there are, from a purely Darwinian standpoint & I repeat again homosexuality is self-evidently a disorder.

According to Darwin’s theory, natural selection by definition is : “Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population."-Taken from the University of Berkeley definition of natural selection

Homosexuals Cannot reproduce & hence cannot contribute to the population gene frequency therefore it's a disorder according to Darwin's theory and they would in a crude way require a medication like any other human disorder.

However is Homosexuality really inherited? I see people arguing about a "gay gene" which shows there lack of insight & knowledge into the research and studies done into this, well am sorry to break it to you as according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice you make the environment you grow in and the way you were raised probably lead you to taking this choice exactly like people who practice zoophilia and bestiality with animals you mean to tell me that they were born attracted to animals?.

At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive. In fact, since the early 1990s, numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable – two important requirements for study results to become accepted as fact in the scientific community.

Because of this, the current thinking in the scientific community is that homosexuality is likely caused by a complex interaction of psychosocial, environmental and possible biological factors. And the two leading national psychiatric and psychological professional groups agree that, so far, there are no conclusive studies supporting any specific biological or genetic cause for homosexuality.
It’s really the time for the LGBT community to stop fearing this word.

While the media’s headlines and reporting of such studies that claim they have found/established a gay gene have given the impression that science is closing in on a it,
it’s important to note that each study suffers from significant problems and limitations. And what the researchers themselves have said about their own work is important. Specifically, you should know that their comments have never been fully reported in the press.

"An empty-headed man becomes wise when a man is born as a wild donkey's colt." job 11:12

Edgarfrndly

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, why are you saying homosexuality wouldn't exist?
If it's what I think you mean then why does my appendix exist?

I never stated that homosexuality wouldn't exist. I was replying to the obvious notion that homosexuality is counter-productive to a species' survival, when it clearly isn't. The only way it would be is if the percentage was higher than the ratio of required offspring for a group to survive.

As for your appendix, it exists for a number of reasons. It is a vestigial organ. Whales for example still contain the skeletal structure of legs, which are of little to no benefit. However in the case of our appendix, one theory suggests that certain beneficial intestinal flora can be stored there, allowing for repopulation at a later date if needed. So it in fact, still contains a purpose. Just not the originally intended purpose, to assistance in breaking down foliage. But rather, to maintain overall gastrointestinal health.

Organs just don't disappear over a short period of time (Which is the amount of time modern humans have lived).

Edgarfrndly

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

However is Homosexuality really inherited? I see people arguing about a "gay gene" which shows there lack of insight & knowledge into the research and studies done into this, well am sorry to break it to you as according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice you make the environment you grow in and the way you were raised probably lead you to taking this choice

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. For it to be a choice, someone would have to find both sexes equally attractive and then make a conscious decision to only be with one of them.

It is certainly not a learned behaviour either, as homosexuality is visible across the animal world. Your environment does not turn you gay. You are born gay. It is not acquired over time.

Defender OF Faith

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. For it to be a choice, someone would have to find both sexes equally attractive and then make a conscious decision to only be with one of them.

It is certainly not a learned behaviour either, as homosexuality is visible across the animal world. Your environment does not turn you gay. You are born gay. It is not acquired over time.

Your entitled to your own opinion you seem to have not read what I posted in length but just remember that you are having faith that one day science will be able to support your claim however I dont think that day will ever come on thing though that I dont understand is why gay people are so afraid of the word "Choice"?

Frank Bullitt

This sorts out the "creation science" part, its not a science, it's a faith based belief with ZERO evidence and ZERO credibility.

As for the theory part, wikipedia does a great job for people who are confused about that.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

There is debate as to HOW evolution takes place, but there is no more debate among actual scientists that it has taken place, and still does.

FunLover18

I just jumped from the first page to the last page … For a second I thought Boards master command had gotten confused and accidentally transferred me to a completely different thread, what the fúck happened!?!?

Edgarfrndly

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your entitled to your own opinion you seem to have not read what I posted in length but just remember that you are having faith that one day science will be able to support your claim however I dont think that day will ever come on thing though that I dont understand is why gay people are so afraid of the word "Choice"?

Nobody is afraid of the word choice. People just take issue with the absurd misuse of the word "choice". I have already explained why it is not a choice.

Are you willing to concede that you find both sexes equally attractive? I do not find the same sex attractive. My heterosexuality is not a choice for me. In the exact same way, my gay brother does not find the opposite sex attractive. We were both brought up in the same household, with the same loving parents, in the same environment. He likes boys, I like girls. No choice involved, and it's not an issue.

It's only an issue for people like you who thinks that people like my brother consciously go out of their way to choose a sexuality that would mean they were ridiculed in school, and suffered mass anxiety and depression for trying to contemplate a way to coming out to their friends and family.

If there was a choice, I certainly wouldn't choose the one that made life umpteen times more difficult as a teen.

krudler

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed.

From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do.

I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.

I know two gay men who have kids, biological kids as well, from previous relationships before they came out. So being gay isn't the end game you're claiming in a purely biological sense. Gay men and women can still procreate, they just don't have that sexual preference. Hell there are a few boardsies who are gay and have kids.

Defender OF Faith

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Nobody is afraid of the word choice. People just take issue with the absurd misuse of the word "choice". I have already explained why it is not a choice.

Are you willing to concede that you find both sexes equally attractive? I do not find the same sex attractive. My heterosexuality is not a choice for me. In the exact same way, my gay brother does not find the opposite sex attractive. We were both brought up in the same household, with the same loving parents, in the same environment. He likes boys, I like girls. No choice involved, and it's not an issue.

It's only an issue for people like you who thinks that people like my brother consciously go out of their way to choose a sexuality that would mean they were ridiculed in school, and suffered mass anxiety and depression for trying to contemplate a way to coming out to their friends and family.

If there was a choice, I certainly wouldn't choose the one that made life umpteen times more difficult as a teen.

You are putting your emotions into this and attempting to use logic to find your way around, also the fact that you have a homosexual brother makes your argument very biased.
Science is the judge between us and so far it's on my side as i explained in my previous post.

Also people choose a lot of stuff in their life that their parents/friends may not agree with so this argument is very flawed, atheism for example do you understand how difficult it would be for a atheist to come out to his strongly practising catholic family and tell them he's an atheists? am sure many in this position will suffer anxiety and depression over it and yet again atheism is a choice and not something you are born with but simply strongly believe in similarly the case with the homosexual .

endacl

Thread has gone bananas. Have we found out yet why there are still monkeys?

Do I have to go all Ray Comfort here, or wha'?

Edgarfrndly

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You are putting your emotions into this and attempting to use logic to find your way around, also the fact that you have a homosexual brother makes your argument very biased.

I was supportive of the LGBT community, long before anyone ever came out to me. I put forward a number of factual points, and valid reasons in support of my argument. You didn't address a single point.

Answer the following questions:

* If homosexuality is a learned behaviour, why does it exist in other animals?

* If homosexuality is a choice, are you stating that on the grounds that you find both sexes equally attractive and consciously choose to only be intimate with one?

* If environment dictates sexuality, then why can two family members who have an identical upbringing have different sexualities?

* Also, please provided a peer-reviewed study in favour of your claim that sexuality is a choice.

paddy1990

For all the Darwinists, how do you reconcile the fact that your emotions are basically just illusions.

Darwinism basically posits that humans are material things. We, and every other animal, are material objects. The emotions we have are just biochemical reactions in our brains that happened to be advantageous for our ancestors so they got naturally selected and don't have any absolute meaning by themselves. The reasons the biochemical pathways formed was because they were advantageous in terms of propagating genes. It just happens to be this way. If evolution had taken a different path, the biochemical pathway that produces the emotion of happiness would be different.

No doubt religious people are "deluded" as Dawkins puts it. But I think pure Darwinists have to be delusional about this subject on some level, because of the implications.

paddy1990

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

* If homosexuality is a learned behaviour, why does it exist in other animals?

I thought pure homosexuality was exclusive to humans? Sure some animals display some gay tendencies and engage in gay sex but they will also engage in hetero sex given the chance whereas in humans you will find out and out gayness to the exclusion of any hetero behavior.

I could be wrong on this though but that was my understanding from some stuff I have read.

Oranage2

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

citrus burst

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

Homosexuality however doesn't totally dismiss procreation as homosexual humans can still reproduce. The preference is different, but the ability is still there.

Antar Bolaeisk

Oranage2 wrote: »

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles) but most haven't. Part of the problem with being human is that we tend to see things on a very, very short time-frame and tend to have difficulty grasping ideas that have a scope of hundreds of years, let alone thousands to millions of years.

ollkiller

Firstly on the idea of gay animals, oh yeah, worked in a pet store for 3 years and two male budgie's were at it every day for 3 years. Chicks in with them as well, not a look did they get.

Love the Evolution is just a theory line, right then, go to the nearest tall building, go to the top of it, jump off and see if the theory of gravity is just a theory.

Creation science, a nice extra security blanket for the religious to make them believe that what they believe is is true and to hide themselves from the fact, as all religions do, that you are afraid of dying and need something to allay that fear.

GreeBo

citrus burst wrote: »

Homosexuality however doesn't totally dismiss procreation as homosexual humans can still reproduce. The preference is different, but the ability is still there.

Indeed, but a gene, trait, whatever that's passed on to make you gay that relies on you not coming out until you have had kids first seems a little...convoluted at best.

The same argument is given earlier, lots of gay people have kids so then it's not an evolutionary dead end.
I have no problem accepting that perhaps some gay offspring had benefits to the family as a whole, I don't agree but I accept the argument.
I don't accept the argument that because gay people often have kids before they come out or that they have them via science that it's not a dead end for them.

GreeBo

Nokia3210 wrote: »

Evolution doesn't necessarily find the most efficient or best solutions, there is no planned path after all. Gayness could simply could simply be a negative side effect of particular genes which are usually highly advantageous for propagating genes.

Or a leftover from a time when it did give some advantage.
My issue is with not accepting that it's a negative side effect, from an evolutionary point of view. The fact that some gay people have kids is not an argument against this, for me anyway.

Roger Hassenforder

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It is still your belief. And you are entitled to take that point of view. I wont argue it with you.
And it may indeed be scientific fact. On this, I probably agree with you. But there is more to the world than science. And being a 'scientific fact' does not necessarily tell the full story. It is just one perspective.
Similarly, by your definition of what a man is, and what an ape is, you deduce that a man is an ape. OK. But only by your definitions.

biology agrees with him.

Akrasia

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles) but most haven't. Part of the problem with being human is that we tend to see things on a very, very short time-frame and tend to have difficulty grasping ideas that have a scope of hundreds of years, let alone thousands to millions of years.

No Animals stop evolving. Crocodiles may not have changed very much morphologically in millions of years, but their immune system, for example, needs to constanrtly evolve to deal with the fact that pathogens in the environment are evolving.

Akrasia

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed, but a gene, trait, whatever that's passed on to make you gay that relies on you not coming out until you have had kids first seems a little...convoluted at best.

The same argument is given earlier, lots of gay people have kids so then it's not an evolutionary dead end.
I have no problem accepting that perhaps some gay offspring had benefits to the family as a whole, I don't agree but I accept the argument.
I don't accept the argument that because gay people often have kids before they come out or that they have them via science that it's not a dead end for them.

Individuals don't need to reproduce in order that their genes are carried forward. It's enough that their genetic kin re-produce.

You share about 50% of your genes with your siblings. If having a gay brother or sister helps you to have more children and raise them to reproductive age, then having a 'gay gene' in your gene pool may have a selective advantage.

In cooperative species that share the child rearing and hunting and protective duties, having childless adults can be helpful.

Also, there may be lots of other genetic advantages to being gay. Having a mixture of male and female personality and physical attributes may allow gay people to fill essential roles in the group better than heterosexual people and thus benefit the group and by extention, the propogation of the genes in that gene pool.

GreeBo

Akrasia wrote: »

Individuals don't need to reproduce in order that their genes are carried forward. It's enough that their genetic kin re-produce.

You share about 50% of your genes with your siblings. If having a gay brother or sister helps you to have more children and raise them to reproductive age, then having a 'gay gene' in your gene pool may have a selective advantage.

I appreciate that, I just don't see the advantage to having gay children at this time.
I can see in the past where a mother having many male children where more and more of them are gay could be useful.
But can you give a modern example of where it's useful?

I think it's more likely to be a result of something else that is typically beneficial, a side effect or that it's an excess of something that's beneficial in smaller "amounts".

Like a strong jaw is attractive, but desperate Dan is too far.

Barely There

The homosexual gene is passed on by the woman, not the man.
That's why it hasn't been 'evolved out' of the gene pool.

The vast majority of women have bisexual tendencies - any perusal of the popular porn websites will demonstrate this.

FobleAsNuck

what if homosexuality is the nature's way of limiting the population?

smcgiff

paddy1990 wrote: »

But I think pure Darwinists have to be delusional about this subject on some level, because of the implications.

That's a poor justification.

donutheadhomer

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

my theory is that certain humans evolved into apes

Akrasia

GreeBo wrote: »

I appreciate that, I just don't see the advantage to having gay children at this time.
I can see in the past where a mother having many male children where more and more of them are gay could be useful.
But can you give a modern example of where it's useful?

I think it's more likely to be a result of something else that is typically beneficial, a side effect or that it's an excess of something that's beneficial in smaller "amounts".

Like a strong jaw is attractive, but desperate Dan is too far.

What do you mean by modern?

For at least 10,000 years human reporduction has been driven by many factors more than just sexual selection. The reasons why people have children are complex and vary by culture and nation. For example, in cultures with arranged marriages, feeling attracted to your mate isn't a requirement for reproduction. Being sexually attractive may not be as big a factor in the number of children you have, as the amount of money or political power you have, (for example) or the religious attitudes you hold towards contraception and/or the family and the role of women.

Going forward, being gay may not be a major barrier to having children. In societies that are repressive towards gay people, men and women will still hide their sexual preferences and have heterosexual marriages regardless of theuir sexual preference. In progressive societies, Gay women can already get pregnant via invitro fertilisation, gay men can use surrogates if they choose, a choice that might become more common as gay marriage becomes normalised and more married men feel the urge to have their own family. People of any sexual preference can sire multiple children by donating eggs or sperm etc